Laratro v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 21 December 2006
• Parties: Richard LARATRO et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

861 N.E.2d 95

8 N.Y.3d 79

Richard LARATRO et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

December 21, 2006.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Deborah A. Brenner, Julie Steiner and Barry P. Schwartz of counsel), for appellants.

Walter G. Alton, Jr. & Associates, New York City (Walter G. Alton, Jr. and Richard J. Montes of counsel), and Mauro Goldberg & Lilling LLP, Great Neck

(Kenneth Mauro of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, J.

Protecting health and safety is one of municipal government's most important duties. Since municipalities are run by human beings, they sometimes fail in that duty, with harmful, even catastrophic, consequences. When that happens, as a general rule, the municipality is not required to pay damages to the person injured. The rationale for this rule is that the cost to municipalities of allowing recovery would be excessive; the threat of liability might deter or paralyze useful activity; and thus the net result of allowing recovery would be to make municipal governments less, not more, effective in protecting their citizens.

We have recognized a narrow exception to the general rule of nonliability where the injured person had a "special relationship" with representatives of the municipality. We hold that this case, in which it is claimed that the City of New York was slow in responding to a 911 call placed by plaintiff's coworker, does not fit within the exception.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff suffered a stroke at his office. Carol Edelson, his coworker and friend, found him sitting at his desk with his head in his hands, unable to respond to questions. Edelson told him she would call an ambulance, and dialed 911 from a telephone a few feet away.

A 911 operator employed by New York City told Edelson that an "ambulance will be there to help you as soon as possible." The ambulance did not come until 35 minutes later, however, allegedly because the operator, when he transmitted Edelson's request, negligently understated the seriousness of plaintiff's condition, describing him only as "sick." Edelson testified that, if she had known that the ambulance would take half an hour or more to arrive, she would have arranged to have plaintiff driven to the hospital in a private car.

Plaintiff suffered brain damage, made worse, according to expert testimony he submitted, by the delay in getting him to a hospital for treatment. He brought this action for damages against the City of New York and its agencies (collectively the City) and other defendants. Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed, one Justice dissenting. We now reverse and reinstate Supreme Court's order.

Discussion

In Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937 (1987), we explained the "special relationship" exception to the well-established rule that a municipality is not liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty — like the duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance service — that the municipality owes to the general public. We said in Cuffy:

"There exists . . . a narrow class of cases in which we have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a `special relationship' between the municipality and the claimant. The elements of this `special relationship' are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." (Id. at 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937 [citations omitted].)

Plaintiff here does not satisfy either the third or the fourth requirement of the Cuffy test, because plaintiff did not have direct contact with, and did not rely on any undertaking by, the City's 911 operator. We decide the case on that ground, and do not reach the issue of whether the 911 operator's statement ("The ambulance will be there to help you as soon as possible") was specific enough to be an "affirmative undertaking" on which a party could justifiably rely.

Our decision is controlled by Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251, 544 N.Y.S.2d 995, 543 N.E.2d 443 (1989). In Kircher, the plaintiff was abducted in a car. The abduction was witnessed by two people; they got the car's license number and gave it to a police officer, who told them he would "call it in" (id. at 254, 544 N.Y.S.2d 995, 543 N.E.2d 443). Relying on the officer's assurance, the witnesses stopped their efforts to help the plaintiff, but the officer did not report the...